The subject of this thread makes it a good place to ask if anyone has followed up on the request for help with copying and pasting the self determination statement in any social media comment sections yet?

I have grown up in a communist regime, and untill the age of 16 was a verwent socialist myself - no wunder, considering the propagandistic efforts of the state. The cardinal mistake of such systems is the necessity to limit the debate - because how else can one defend a state doctrin which has severe deficiencies? The limitation of the debate, and subsequent censoreship necessarily cause intellectual poverty among the broader leadership - we all know the consequences.

I have observed twice communist regimes on site and in action.A few things in them did impressed me.Some others either left me completely indifferent,or inspired me only irony and contempt.Some aspects of these regimes did fool me,like their police apparatus.I could not imagine that such regimes,apparently so well armed,could collapse so quickly.Lastly,and at the time I became a gay separatist (70s),marxism had an important following in the part of the world where I live.None of these communist gentlemen wanted to move to a communist country however.Which led me to conclude that political power was their real motive,and marxist ideology only a pretext.

The case of pre-war France is but one example of possible weakness of democracy - Weimar Germany is another one. However, it was not the democratic order that caused the troubles - the countries leadership and populations were simply entrapped in wrong state of minds.

The democratic system is the best to administer a country in conditions of plenty and under quiet international circumstances.Its decisional procedures and humanitarian concerns may however be no match in agitated and dangerous times on the world`s stage,when the independence of the nation-State is at stake.Or when the issue is precisely to create a new State.Obstacles of a human nature will eventually be encountered by us,which will not always lend themselves to good old liberal solutions or methods of political action.

I was born and I have lived so far under a democratic regime.I was entirely free to criticize it along with others,which didn`t left me entirely unconscious as to its limitations. [..]

I have grown up in a communist regime, and untill the age of 16 was a verwent socialist myself - no wunder, considering the propagandistic efforts of the state. The cardinal mistake of such systems is the necessity to limit the debate - because how else can one defend a state doctrin which has severe deficiencies? The limitation of the debate, and subsequent censoreship necessarily cause intellectual poverty among the broader leadership - we all know the consequences.

[..] its limitations.First,it doesn`t exist everywhere as I was able to see for myself by traveling abroad.Second,it is rather recent,since one doesn`t encounter much democracy in action and in history books.It is not a very heroic political system,notably in its social-democraticform with which I am the most familiar. [..]

The oldest democracy I am familiar with is the Athenian democracy. This was a very well-going direct democracy, a model which is unfortunately not very practicable in modern societies. "Every nation has the government it deserves" - a very true statement. A herd of sheep are best governed by an absolute monarch and a small aristocracy, whereas a civil society with well-educated and mature citizens is best served by democracy. The democratic government stands and falls with its institutions and the readiness of citizens to participate in the political process.

To quote Wikipedia:

"A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot' that finds its origins in the ancient Greek word ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs) meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word eventually acquired its modern meaning."

It is therefore the duty of political elites to enhance the education level of citizens and to create a positive climate of considering political rights a privilege, and not a burden. The current developements in many countries, namely the purposeful spread of idioty among citizens, resembles the decay of Roman Republic - with the intent to depriove the people from power and to transfer it to the hands of few.

[..] More or less,he says that the country (in his case,France) is to be saved from foreign domination,and it is a most regrettable thing that the bunch of its "saviors" will have in the end to step down and restore democracy in power,even if it is democracy itself which was the original cause of the dowfall of the State.After we have established an independent State of our own,liberals in it will be free to play their little ritual and/or idealistic games.Some liberals might be no match against perils of the foreign and international environment,in which case certain other people will replace them temporarily. [..]

The case of pre-war France is but one example of possible weakness of democracy - Weimar Germany is another one. However, it was not the democratic order that caused the troubles - the countries leadership and populations were simply entrapped in wrong state of minds. Athenian democracy was as succesfull a military power as the Spartan monarchy - with overwhelmingly higher culture and wealth. The high art of politics will be to find the right place of action for any particular politician or strateg.

This is a very satisfying statement - it makes at the end no difference out of what motivations one makes the right thing. In my view, the state is the expression of the collective interest of the people - to serve the common needs of the people. In a totalitarian regime the state quickly turns out to serve interests of the clique at power - and against the people. It is good that we agree upon that point.

I was born and I have lived so far under a democratic regime.I was entirely free to criticize it along with others,which didn`t left me entirely unconscious as to its limitations.First,it doesn`t exist everywhere as I was able to see for myself by traveling abroad.Second,it is rather recent,since one doesn`t encounter much democracy in action and in history books.It is not a very heroic political system,notably in its social-democraticform with which I am the most familiar.Democracy could lead the State to its downfall,and produce the individuals just for that.But my impressionin the case of democracy is that the downfall will only be temporary,for democracy will also produce the individuals required to reestablish the independence of the State.Whereas the downfall of such totalitarian States like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was irretrievable.In his War Memories,General De Gaule comments contemptuously on the limitations of the parlimentary democratic system.More or less,he says that the country (in his case,France) is to be saved from foreign domination,and it is a most regrettable thing that the bunch of its "saviors" will have in the end to step down and restore democracy in power,even if it is democracy itself which was the original cause of the dowfall of the State.After we have established an independent State of our own,liberals in it will be free to play their little ritual and/or idealistic games.Some liberals might be no match against perils of the foreign and international environment,in which case certain other people will replace them temporarily.

I have reservations about totalitarianism which I once mentionned in this forum.They are not really sentimentally based,or motivated by the salvation of the individual.Totalitarian States and regimes have no process for transfering political power in an orderly fashion from an administration to another.Or from one generation to another.In that respect,totalitarianism endangers the continuous existence of the State. [..]

This is a very satisfying statement - it makes at the end no difference out of what motivations one makes the right thing. In my view, the state is the expression of the collective interest of the people - to serve the common needs of the people. In a totalitarian regime the state quickly turns out to serve interests of the clique at power - and against the people. It is good that we agree upon that point.

You are suggesting to learn from Jesuits - I can agree to this notion, yes. Political and methodological education is very important. Religious orders have recognized this long time ago, and we can learn a lot from them about organization.

Your notion of sacrifice in the service of the gay state is a valuable one, and can be very well preached to the cadres of military, medical corps or particular political organizations. These values, however, cannot be transplanted into the entire population by the means of coercion and brain-washing.

On that point,I do not disagree with you.Gays are real,not idealistic.We will have to do the job with the human material at hand.With the bestmaterial available upon which we can set our hands,like the Jesuit order.

It must be clearly stated at this point, that in the gay state we would be fierceful political opponents: I abominate totalitarism in all its forms, even in the form of the gay totalitarism.

I have reservations about totalitarianism which I once mentionned in this forum.They are not really sentimentally based,or motivated by the salvation of the individual.Totalitarian States and regimes have no process for transfering political power in an orderly fashion from an administration to another.Or from one generation to another.In that respect,totalitarianism endangers the continuous existence of the State.That,but that only,keeps me from giving my adhesion to an eventual totalitarian gay regime.The individual alone would not provide me with a motivation to remain comitted to democracy as the least disagreable political regime.Once the task of establishing a gay independent State is over,power must be handed to a democratic political regime,in the same fashion announced by General De Gaule in his War Memories.The comitment to democracy is sentimental in certain individuals,and motivated by the Raison d`État in others like my humble self.You remain free to assess which motive is the most reliable.

K6, we apparently have very differing understanding of the role of the state, and of the role of so-called "political elites". You seem to be very fond of the "Staatsräson"

If I am not compelled by circumstances to choose between the State and the individual,I won`t.I will actually be glad to be spared that terrible choice,which is not an easy one for a product of a democratic society like my humble self.But if some individual forces me into a choice between himself and some gay political interest more permanent than an individual,I will do that choice.It cannot be said that I will not have given an advanced warning to that effect.I am a deadly serious person when it comes to the idea of gay self-determination.

There are strong indices in favour of the in-born nature of human sexual orientation. We could therefore very well talk of someones "heterosexual" or "homosexual" nature, meaning the natural affinity to the opposite or the same sex. Even (arbitrarily) assuming that children are not sexually determined at birth, one can hardly argue that an individual "chooses" freely his sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about feelings, not about deeds - even a homosexual engaged in "heterosexual lifestyle" still remains a homosexual - a closeted one, however.

What individuals feel is beyond my humble means of evaluation.Individuals are therefore what they do,and which remains within the range of my capacities for observation.

[..] There is no heterosexual or gay human nature.The gay people is completely alone on the world stage of history,as are other actors on that stage.We exist only because of the dedication of individuals to our particular orientation.There is no common arbiter between us and the heterosexuals,not even nature.We can be saved from extinction and foreign hethro rule only by ourselves. [..]

There are strong indices in favour of the in-born nature of human sexual orientation. We could therefore very well talk of someones "heterosexual" or "homosexual" nature, meaning the natural affinity to the opposite or the same sex. Even (arbitrarily) assuming that children are not sexually determined at birth, one can hardly argue that an individual "chooses" freely his sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is about feelings, not about deeds - even a homosexual engaged in "heterosexual lifestyle" still remains a homosexual - a closeted one, however.

Quite another thing is, of course, being gay as political act (we have discussed the issue extensely in relation to Denneny's "First Proposition" already). As a people, the gay people is indeed solely the result of the free will of gays - considering being gay as identity-forming token and creating the gay culture(s) by themselves. We must be therefore aware, that "homosexuals" will exist through millenia independently from any efforts, whereas the same cannot be stated about "gays" - to preserve us as a people, we must act as a people. We must strengthen the relations within our people over the borders of existing states and languages, overcome the generation gap and find solutions to involve less wealthy individuals. Viital institutions for our cultural needs shall be created, and the internet as a low-cost solution should be used for communication and distribution of cultural goods.

I beg here to differ.A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.So-called closeted homosexuals are to be abandonned to their fate.This is the time to save the people and the future State,not to rescue the individual who was not up to the test and task of existence and self-determination for the gay nation.Cocooned gays,we can entice by something greater than their own carreers for a while,not indefinitely.

K6, we apparently have very differing understanding of the role of the state, and of the role of so-called "political elites". You seem to be very fond of the "Staatsräson" and of the idea that the individual's primary assignment is to serve the needs of the state - at almost any cost. The logical consequence is then to distinguish between "good" and "bad", clearly "worthy" and "worthless" citizens - depending on how much they can be used for the purposes of the state leadership. Brain-washing and indoctrination instead of education, prescribed "correct" ideology, incarceration or elimination of inconvenient opponents - is this the way to go for us?

It must be clearly stated at this point, that in the gay state we would be fierceful political opponents: I abominate totalitarism in all its forms, even in the form of the gay totalitarism. Not the people ought serve the state, but the state ought serve the people! And a diverse people we are: closeted homosexuals belong to this people as well as militant gay isolationists, cowards as well as braves - we are one people. The state shall take care of all members of our people - we cannot arbitrarily exclude those who do not fit into tightl ideological schemes. If they are weak and cocooned, it is our duty to help them to develope further as gay individuals by the means of education and positive role modeling, instead of living them to their fate.

Society lives from pluralism, and wherever tatalitarian structures were installed, it was always bad for the people. Intellectual monoculture, corruption and oppression were the only fruits of such structures - not the intended ideological euphory. I have first-hand experience with totalitarian societies, and I can witness that the reality in such societies is mostly very different from the scenario wich was invented by the political clique.

Your notion of sacrifice in the service of the gay state is a valuable one, and can be very well preached to the cadres of military, medical corps or particular political organizations. These values, however, cannot be transplanted into the entire population by the means of coercion and brain-washing.

The various political schools will struggle for the influence on the state and the society - and in this struggle the best way for our people will be found. The "fundamentalists" can peacefully live side on side with "liberals".

[li]Help closeted or cocooned homosexuals to understand and accept their identity and to come out.[/li]

I beg here to differ.A chain is no stronger than its weakest link.So-called closeted homosexuals are to be abandonned to their fate.This is the time to save the people and the future State,not to rescue the individual who was not up to the test and task of existence and self-determination for the gay nation.Cocooned gays,we can entice by something greater than their own carreers for a while,not indefinitely.

If hypothetically I was a teacher in some school for future gay political cadres to be at a later date invested and sacrificed onto the altar of gay self-determination,I would tell them bluntly: "There is no heterosexual or gay human nature.The gay people is completely alone on the world stage of history,as are other actors on that stage.We exist only because of the dedication of individuals to our particular orientation.There is no common arbiter between us and the heterosexuals,not even nature.We can be saved from extinction and foreign hethro rule only by ourselves".

This is true. The international gay heritage created through millenia must be collected, augmented and transmitted from generation to generation. This heritage includes political and philosophical works, belles lettres and visual arts. My suggestion was to make a compillation of important political and philosophical contributions to form a kind of secular "gay scripture", which would form the frame of our political (national?) self-perception. The "scripture" may consist of controversal works, leaving it to the reader to follow the various logical lines and decide by him/herself, what considerations appear more evident. It is clear, that with decades/centuries many new works shall be added to the "scripture" to address new ethical/political problems or depict new solutions.

With the advent of the internet,this is now among the things possible.Politics are the art of the possible.

We are in need of a secular political faith in ourselves.If we have made it since the origins of mankind,why should be believe in anybody else ? Or in anybody`s else intervention to saveguard our interests ?

This is true. The international gay heritage created through millenia must be collected, augmented and transmitted from generation to generation. This heritage includes political and philosophical works, belles lettres and visual arts. My suggestion was to make a compillation of important political and philosophical contributions to form a kind of secular "gay scripture", which would form the frame of our political (national?) self-perception. The "scripture" may consist of controversal works, leaving it to the reader to follow the various logical lines and decide by him/herself, what considerations appear more evident. It is clear, that with decades/centuries many new works shall be added to the "scripture" to address new ethical/political problems or depict new solutions.

We have to contemplate three scenarios. [..] In those three scenarios,sovereignty has to find some repository other than a State. [..] The normal repository of gay sovereignty in the absence of a State,if we were better organized politically,would have been the gay people itself.We will probably have to rest content with the individual,because it`s only to the efforts of the individual that we ow our existence.The individual cannot represent the will of the people.But he can represent its interests,provided that the said interests are well defined. [..]

Certainly, in the absence of the gay state the burden of preserving and transmittance of the gay cultural heritage is lying on the shoulders of single gay individuals. These individuals can act in more or less organized associations (as in many liberal countries in our time), or on their own risk (situation in highly oppressive regimes).

What are the duties of a gay individual in the absence of the gay state? I would shortly depict them in my own understanding as follows:

Be aware of one's identity as gay.

Do not act contrary to one's gay nature.

Do not enter into heterosexual marriage.

Live openly gay, if the cituation allows this without coming into live danger. Spoiled political carreer or deminished income does not constitute live danger.

Learn to respect other homosexuals independently of their unusual clothings and apparantly ridiculous attitudes.

Help other homosexuals when you are able to do so. If you know a homeless gay, help him to find a home, food and cloth. If other homosexuals become assaulted, help them to defend themselves. If you cannot help by yourselfe, find someone who can help.

Take care of yourselfe and others. Donate to medical and social projects.

Learn to know gay history and culture. Pass your knowledge to others in your surroundings, especially to the younger ones.

Help closeted or cocooned homosexuals to understand and accept their identity and to come out.

If you are an employer, give jobs prevalently to suitable homosexual applicants - they will have difficulties to get a job elsewhere. Pay your employees well and take care of them. Business profit is an issue of economy, and as such only a part of human social life.

Engage in politics to improve situation of homosexuals in your country or in your place. Write letters in behalf of persecuted homosexuals in other countries if you become aware of their persecution. Press to your representatives/government to intervene.

Support gay political and cultural organizations. Tell others that a gay state could be created if gays were sufficiently organized. If you are rich, buy an area and declare it a gay colony.